Examination of Witnesses (Questions 645
- 659)
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2006
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, MR SIMON
WEBB AND
MR NIGEL
CAMPBELL
Q645 Chairman: Welcome and as it
is your first visit to this Committee, we are particularly pleased
to see you and hope you are far enough into your job to be ready
to answer all the fairly easy questions which we have got for
you.
Mr Alexander: Time will tell.
Q646 Chairman: Perhaps I could begin
by asking for your overall assessment of how the Government is
doing in cutting carbon emissions, in particular where the Department
for Transport is doing well and where you think it needs to improve
its act?
Mr Alexander: Thank you, Chairman.
I am glad to accept the invitation. I think it is my first appearance
before a select committee, you beat the Transport Select Committee
to have me before the Committee, and I recognise that it was a
commitment of my predecessor which I am happy to honour. Perhaps,
with your indulgence, I could introduce my officials who are supporting
me: Simon Webb who is the Director General for Delivery and Security;
and Nigel Campbell, who is the Head of the Transport Analysis
and Review Division at the Department for Transport. Perhaps if
I could make a very brief introductory statement it would in part
answer your question and also set the context for my later remarks.
Dealing with climate change is perhaps the biggest long-term challenge
that we face. That would be the first point I would wish to place
on the record. It is a top priority for the Government and we
have made this clear in the recently published joint Climate Change
Programme, with which members of the Committee will be familiar.
Much has already been done to tackle climate change. We are on
track to do considerably better than our Kyoto commitment of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by over 20% against the target of 12½%
below 1990 levels by 2008-12, although of course we are short
against our domestic carbon target of 20% by 2010, and we will
continue to work towards our long-term goal which is a 60% reduction
in carbon emissions from current levels by 2050, which was recommended
by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. My Department,
the Department for Transport, of course shares ownership of the
PSA target with the Department for Trade and Industry and with
Defra and, as the Climate Change Programme underlines, we are
working closely with other departments, and we plan to do more.
In tackling climate change, we recognise that a strong and growing
economy poses some considerable challenges, not least for transport.
It does not matter where in the world carbon is emitted or by
what means; the problem of climate change is global and therefore
so too is the solution, which is why we set out in the Climate
Change Programme a flexible approach to secure carbon reductions
across the economy wherever they are most effectively made. This
ensures that we are able to secure the most reductions for any
given cost and with the least impact on growth. Good transport
links, of course, are central to a prosperous economy. As economies
grow, people tend to travel much further and more often than they
used to. The key is for government to set the right framework
for an effective transport strategy which also enables us to meet
our environmental obligations on CO2 emissions. Our
strategy focuses on four key areas and I talk, with your indulgence,
very briefly about each of these in turn. Firstly, to reduce how
much fossil carbon there is in transport fuel. Over the long term
we want clean, low-carbon transport systems. An important step
towards this is ensuring that a certain percentage of transport
fuel sold in the UK is made up of biofuels. That is why we will
introduce a renewable transport fuels obligation at a level of
5% in biofuels in annual sales by 2010. This will result in a
net saving of about one million tonnes of carbon every year, the
equivalent of taking one million cars off the road. Secondly,
improving technology to make vehicles more fuel efficient. That
means working closely with manufacturers to deliver cleaner and
greener cars. Voluntary agreements with motor manufacturers have
played a significant part in improving the fuel efficiency of
cars. Since 1997 the average new car fuel efficiency in the UK
has improved by some 10%. It is vital that the industry continues
to push the boundaries of technology to come up with cleaner and
more fuel-efficient vehicles in the years to come. Thirdly, encouraging
people to be more aware of the environmental impact of the journeys
they make and encourage them to make more environmentally friendly
journeys. Yes, we are putting sustained investment into public
transport to improve the reliability of journeys by rail, by light
rail, by bus, and to give people a real alternative to travelling
by car. We need to continue to help people make informed choices
about when and how they travel, and what type of vehicles they
choose to buy in the future. Fourthly, working towards including
transport in Emissions Trading Schemes and using market mechanisms
for environmental ends. This is something I worked on during my
time in the Foreign Office as the Minister for Europe. In the
United Kingdom we continue to push for a well-designed Emissions
Trading Scheme to ensure that the aviation sector tackles its
emissions. In time, extending emissions trading to other forms
of surface transport, not just the aviation industry, could have
a big impact on the reduction of carbon as well. In the longer
term we need to look seriously at the fuels we are using to power
our transport, which is why we have been piloting the development
of hydrogen fuel transport. In conclusion to these brief introductory
remarks, we are committed to tackling climate change. Government
departments need to continue to work closely together. The industry
and individuals also have key roles to play: it will be up to
the industry to develop the technology and the cleaner vehicles;
it is for individuals to think more about the environmental impacts
of how and when they travel; and it is for government to set the
right policy framework and ensure the right incentives are in
place.
Q647 Chairman: There are a number
of important facts there and plenty of worthy sentiments. Can
I just reiterate the question, however, transport is the only
major section of the economy in which emissions have risen since
1990. They are continuing to be projected to rise and in the Climate
Change Programme document published only a few weeks ago there
is a continuing rise in carbon emissions from transport over the
next 15 years, and possibly of course beyond that too. Therefore,
where do you think the Department for Transport is doing well
and where does it need to do better? It is not really a question
of cutting emissions in transport; it is a question of restricting
the rate of growth of carbon emissions in transport. Where are
the opportunities and the threats?
Mr Alexander: Your observation
reflects the fact that there has been a fairly close correlation
between emissions from transport and growth in the economy. Within
that category of transport it is the case that aviation emissions
have been rising of course faster than other parts of the transport
sector. However, that notwithstanding, in terms of the review
that was undertaken for the production of this document and indeed
the policies that we now anticipate therein, broadly a quarter
of the UK emissions result from the transportation sector and
about a quarter of the anticipated savings in terms of carbon
reduction are accounted for by measures for which the Department
for Transport has responsibility. So I am alive to the concerns
that you express, but I think in terms of the policy measures
that we have taken it reflects the fact that we are seriously
engaged on this issue with the Department. If I was to characterise
the approach of the Department—and you will appreciate I
am fairly new to the brief but this has been a subject in which
I have taken a fairly close interest in recent weeks—I think
our approach reflects the fact that a judgment was made by my
predecessors, I believe the right judgment, to embed an understanding
of environmental issues across the Department, rather than to
say there should be, for example, a specific group of people whose
sole task is to work on the environment and somehow the responsibility
of the rest of the Department does not reflect the priority placed
on the environment. I think it is important, particularly in a
department like Transport, to embed an understanding of environmental
considerations right across the Department, and that has been
the approach that has been taken. Within the Department, if that
is the approach, I think it is also critical, reflecting the cross-governmental
approach that we have taken in recent years, that we are actively
engaged as a department with other government departments given
that we do believe that the solution to the environmental challenges
that we face will not be met by any single government department
but by each government department taking a share of the responsibility
and working effectively to make sure that we have global solutions
to what is inherently a global problem.
Q648 Chairman: If the environmental
issues really are embedded in the Department and if there was
any substance to the comment in the Prime Minister's letter of
appointment to you when he says: "in particular transport
is critical to our long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions",
that is what he said in his letter to you, why was it that the
Annual Report from the Department this year did not mention the
fact that carbon emissions are higher in transport than in 1990
and that this is the only sector from which emissions are projected
to be higher still in 2020? If environment issues are really embedded
in the way you describe, that is a pretty extraordinary omission,
is it not?
Mr Alexander: I would say that
the best guide to the relative salience of the issue of the environment
in terms of the Department for Transport is, as I say, to start
from where the Government starts which is that we need a cross-governmental
approach. If one examines the Climate Change Programme 2006 which
has been recently published there is a section dealing exclusively
with transport which we hold responsibility for but which has
been developed along with other departments including Defra and
the DTI. In terms of the letter of appointment that you refer
to, that approach is reflected in the paragraph that follows the
quotation that you offered to the Committee. It states that it
will be very important that I "work closely in particular
with David Miliband, Alistair Darling, and Ruth Kelly to ensure
that our transport strategy is consistent with government policies
in relation to the environment, energy and housing." In that
sense, I can certainly speak for the terms of my appointment letter.
It is reflected very clearly in the terms of that appointment
letter that we recognise transport has a role to play but it is
one of a number of departments who share that responsibility and
share that obligation to take forward that agenda.
Q649 Chairman: Given you do have
responsibility for what is going on within your Department, are
you surprised, for example, that there are no transport-specific
targets for carbon emission reductions?
Mr Alexander: No, because it reflects,
as I sought to reflect in my introductory statement, the nature
of how carbon moves around the atmosphere, never mind the workings
of government, and explains the approach that we have taken. As
a Government we have not seen it appropriate to set specific departmental
targets; rather to say what are our global targets and then how
most efficiently, in a way that secures both value for money and
has least impact on the economy, can we secure the maximum savings.
I think it is inherit in that approach that rather than saying
there is a specific departmental or sector approach we look across
not just the economy but each of the sectors of the economy and
reach a common view. That is why I emphasise the fact that it
is not simply important for the Department for Transport to understand
the importance of this issue, but also to be working very effectively
with officials and indeed with ministers from other departments
to make sure that we have a joined-up approach as reflected in
the Climate Change UK Programme in 2006.
Q650 Chairman: If we take the issue
of road charging, which is a rather sensitive one and therefore
I am sure you have had some thoughts about this, why is it that
the higher priority apparently in the Department's mind in road
pricing is reducing congestion rather than cutting carbon emissions?
Mr Alexander: Because I do not
see the two areas of work as being exclusive. Of course, we have
a growing problem in terms of congestion, and road pricing is
one of the potential solutions to that challenge. I think it is
important to recognise that congestion is already afflicting a
large number of drivers, and a growing number of drivers in the
country, and it is therefore right that we take forward the debate
that was initiated by my predecessor, Alistair Darling, in discussing
the feasibility of a national road pricing scheme. The approach
that we have taken in taking forward that debate is not simply
to engage in public debate and discussion of the issues but also
to try and establish regional pilots which will allow on-the-ground
experience to develop. It is no secret if one looks at the example
of the congestion charge in London, that one of the essential
ingredients of the experience of the congestion charge was an
improvement in the public transport infrastructure and provision
of services within London. My strong sense is that congestion
charging will have to come to be seen, if it is to become acceptable
not just to the motoring public but to the general public, to
be part of a wider package of measures so that you address issues
of network management but at the same time you give people genuine
choices. If we were to have a discussion a year ago with 100 members
of the public, few of them would have heard of road pricing. If
we were to have the discussion today I think many of them would
have heard of road pricing, but I am not sure that many of them
would yet be convinced of the merits of road pricing. If we are
to secure a consensus on the issue of road pricing, an absolutely
key element of that will be being able to strengthen public transport,
which of course has environmental impacts, and so in that sense
while it is important to recognise road pricing's potential contribution
to the challenge of congestion, I do not see it as being inimical
to the work that we are taking forward in terms of carbon emissions.
Q651 Chairman: But do you still feel,
however, that the greater priority is reducing congestion rather
than addressing climate change?
Mr Alexander: I was aware of the
evidence that was given by one of the previous witnesses to this
Committee suggesting that climate change was not accorded a high
level of priority within the Department. I can assure you, both
on the basis of the work that we have been taking forward in terms
of the Climate Change Programme 2006 and also the personal priority
that I attach to this work, that it will remain a focus of work
for the Department. In terms of the evidence I would bring to
bear for the fact that we do take this issue very seriously, as
I say, is while the transport sector accounts for about a quarter
of the emissions, in terms of the projected savings set out in
the UK programme about a quarter of those are accounted for by
initiatives relating to the transport sector.
Q652 Joan Walley: Could I press you
a little bit further on that. I would not want you to be defensive
on this but I was just wondering if you were coming into the Department
and had a completely free hand about where the PSA targets should
be, do you think that you would want to be moving towards getting
PSA targets for your Department which really looked at carbon
emissions as a priority?
Mr Alexander: If one looks at
the PSAs that I have inherited, there is a formal process of course,
whereby in discussion with the Treasury as part of the Spending
Review Process PSA targets—
Q653 Joan Walley: But if you could
start afresh.
Mr Alexander: That would be a
luxury which I am not sure any Secretary of State has ever previously
enjoyed in terms of what is inevitably the on-going work of a
department. Of course, PSA targets can be reviewed and it is appropriate
that given changing circumstances they are periodically. I think
the fact that we have a joint PSA both with the DTI and also with
Defra reflects the fact that already there is an awareness that
this is very central to the work of the Department but that this
is not a challenge exclusive to the Department for Transport but
one that we share with colleagues across government. In terms
of assisting the Committee, if I could suggest that Simon say
a word in terms of the joint analysis that informs the work that
we do with the other departments. One of the opportunities I have
taken in recent weeks is to gain a better understanding of how
in practice the Department for Transport is working effectively
both with Defra and with the DTI. While it would be straightforward
for me to assert that there is a joint PSA target, one of the
first questions that I was asking was in practical terms how does
that affect the way that the Department actually works.
Q654 Emily Thornberry: Before he
does, I am really confused. I understand that you do not have
a specific target in terms of "the Department for Transport
will not have this target and we will not be responsible for the
reduction of by a particular amount of carbon", but then
you were talking about a quarter. I do not quite follow that.
Mr Alexander: The reason I cited
a quarter was to evidence the fact that not withstanding the fact
that the sector of the economy for which the Department for Transport
has responsibility does see a rising level of emissions, and it
is right to acknowledge that aviation within that sector is rising
more precipitously than others, I would dispute fundamentally
the assertion that within the global target set for government
that the Department for Transport does not recognise its responsibilities.
So it is to evidence the fact that notwithstanding the fact that
we have a global target, and reflecting the fact that we have
worked collaboratively and effectively with other colleagues within
government, if one then looks at where the carbon savings are
anticipated to made contained within the UK programme there is
a very significant proportion of that work which reflects the
work of my Department.
Mr Webb: If I can fill out how
that works in practice because that may nail it down a bit. There
are lots of senior bits of the inter-departmental structure in
which I participate but the bit I would like to draw attention
to for this purpose is that we have an inter-departmental analysts
group which is centred on those three departments and has other
supporting people. What they have been doing, particularly in
the run up to the production of this, is to actually look at a
range of options for carbon reduction right across government
sectors, obviously concentrating on the responsibilities of those
three departments and to use common analytical techniques to go
through those things, to assess their effectiveness, to assess
their cost, and to do peer review and check that we are all working
in the same direction. It has been, in my view, one of the most
powerful parts of the new working patterns that we have in place
that we have as well as a joint political leadership, that sort
of analytical underpinning which means that the measures we have
got here, and I think you will see there is a consistency about
the way this book is written, have been evaluated and put into
the programme on a collective basis. I do think that gives us
a better way of handling this than I have seen in many other countries,
for example. On the Annual Report, since the Minister was not
here, I would just say that the Annual Report is about last year.
This is obviously a long-term programme. We have never disguised
the fact that transport emissions are going up. We have an Annual
Report where the report is done annually and there is a slight
problem about the way the statistics come through on emissions
that we do not get them until a bit later when we have closed
down the Annual Report. Rather than get smacked by the Transport
Select Committee for producing our report late, we tend to concentrate
on the annual issues and obviously the statistics come out as
a longer term issue separately.
Q655 Joan Walley: I was just curious
about the inter-departmental analysis that there is jointly with
the other departments. As well as having analysis, have you also
got some political means of having a cross-cutting Cabinet committee
that is going to make absolutely certain that your Department
does have this commitment towards the objectives and targets?
Mr Alexander: Yes, the Cabinet
committee on Energy and the Environment, EE as it is known in
the trade, looks at the impact of government policies on sustainable
development and the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable development,
EE(SD) in the trade, looks at improving government's contribution
to sustainable development. I sit on the EE Committee, the Energy
and Environment Committee, but again I think from my experience
in government it would not be an adequate answer simply to assert
that there is a structure there. There also has to be the will
amongst the politicians to work collaboratively and to work effectively.
I would cite a couple of points in response to that. Firstly,
in the letter of appointment from the Prime Minister he personally
charged me to work with Ruth Kelly, who clearly with responsibility
for planning issues has a responsibility which impacts on the
environment; with Alistair Darling, as the incoming Secretary
of State for the Department for Trade and Industry, who are leading
on the Energy Review in which we have taken a very close interest,
as you would rightfully expect; and also with David Miliband,
as the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is also no secret
that David and I go back a long way and we have taken the opportunity
even since we have assumed these briefs to talk about how we can
work effectively together, given the risk that if there was not
effective working between departments, you could have had a position
which was more true in years past where the Environment Department
had the responsibility but not the levers, and that is actually
why I think this document reflects a different and more sophisticated
approach which says we are first of all going to share global
ambitions but we are going to work collaboratively to see where
we can maximise the impact of our policies. On a personal level,
I assure you that it is matter which I have already taken the
opportunity to discuss with the incoming Secretary of State for
the Environment. Indeed, I authored jointly an article with him
reflecting the importance that I attach to the environment as
the incoming Secretary of State for Transport. The formal structures
are there and the political will from the very top of the Government
is there that we do take forward that work. This is not some subversive
initiative of two Cabinet ministers but rather reflecting the
will of the Prime Minister that we work together. I think the
mechanisms are there and indeed in the document produced very
recently the joint working of the Department is manifest in the
goals that we have set.
Q656 Mr Chaytor: Just pursuing the
question of targets, has your argument now had to change following
the letter from the Minister of State for Climate Change this
week which actually does set cross-government targets for CO2
emissions in each department's area of responsibility? So basically
by virtue of this letter of 12 June you now have targets to meet
in respect of the government estate. Presumably this is disaggregated
department by department so you will have a target for carbon
emissions from offices, a target for carbon emissions from road
vehicles, and so on. Is it not inconsistent to say we do not need
a departmental target for areas of policy as a whole but we have
accepted or will be accepting a departmental target for our area
of management and administration?
Mr Alexander: I would not say
that there is an inconsistency there because it reflects the different
status and operation of a secretary of state effectively overseeing,
along with the permanent secretary, the immediate estate within
the control of the department from the policy levers which are
available which impact not simply in terms of climate change priorities
but also on issues of the wider economy and economic growth. I
think it is perfectly reasonable to say that within the government
estate, reflecting the announcement that was made by the Prime
Minister and David Miliband earlier this week, that we do accept
that responsibility specific to individual departments across
Whitehall, but at the same time we recognise that the means by
which we can best secure the goals that we have set for ourselves,
as they impact not just on the economy but on wider society, is
to take that wider view and then ensure that each of our departments
bears its share of responsibility.
Mr Webb: I might just say that
the work on that was also done by a cross-government group. I
happen to be the lead on the estate and on the transport target,
for which we are particularly enthusiastic, as you can imagine,
from transport. That was a joint production even though Mr Miliband
sent it round.
Q657 Dr Turner: Can I take you back
to your logic of not having a transport-specific target. Given
that we have a national global target for CO2 emissions
and that transport emissions account for a very significant part
of our global emissions, and if we are going to achieve our global
target we have definitely got to reduce transport emissions, does
it not make perfect sense to do some planning in this respect
which means that you will end up with a target even if it is only
an aspiration?
Mr Alexander: I believe a better
approach is to say how can we best secure against the targets
that we have set the most effective—
Q658 Dr Turner: But you have not.
Mr Alexander: But we have as a
Government and it is inherent in the nature of carbon distribution
in the atmosphere, never mind the machinery of government across
Whitehall, that whether carbon is emitted by a power station or
by a vehicle exhaust pipe, its deleterious effect on the environment
is exactly the same. That is why I think it is sensible to say
where can we get the maximum return for the policies we are implementing
as a government, recognising that we have to strike a balance
between meeting our environmental obligations, and recognising
other social and economic aspects of our work as a government.
Q659 Dr Turner: That does not really
answer the point because you could so easily have a situation,
as almost is developing right now, where everyone else's cuts
are outweighed by growth in transport emissions. So you have to
address transport emissions. Indeed, you have gone some way towards
that in practice by commissioning research which has led to the
VIBAT study which suggests that you could cut UK transport emissions
by 60% by 2030. That runs entirely in the face of not having a
departmental target, so how do you square these things and what
do you think of the VIBAT study? Do you think it is realistic?
Mr Alexander: Let me take your
questions in turn. Firstly, in terms of why do we not have a transport-specific
target? Because what we are looking for is carbon reductions across
the economy, and in that sense we believe that it is right to
say that we should have an approach that says where can we secure
the maximum benefit in terms of carbon reductions which may come
from transport or may come from the work of other government departments.
If one looks, for example, at the emissions generated by the five
major power-generating companies within the economy, this is not
a challenge alone for transport. I do not sit here as Transport
Secretary denying that we have a share of responsibility, but
I believe that the structure to approach this question is better
to say let us have a general target and then let us work together
to establish how we can most effectively meet it. You are right
to recognise that the VIBAT study that you describe did look at
a particular piece of work saying specifically a transport target
and you have narrated the terms of that. That does not reflect
the Government's policy and we have never affected that there
was a transport-specific policy. It was indeed a different piece
of work which was commissioned in order both to test methodology
but also to inform some of the decisions that potentially we will
make in the years to come. You can imagine in anticipation of
my appearance before this Committee, I took a fairly detailed
interest in why the VIBAT study was commissioned and the results
that were produced. One could argue that it begs the question
as to whether as a Department we should be commissioning long-term
thinking of that sort, given that it does not reflect present
government policy, but I do think a balance has to be struck here
between being able to inform ministers and officials in the choices
that are made and not then being characterised in front of even
distinguished committees such as this as having policies which
are not stated government policy. There were, of course, methodological
differences with the VIBAT study itself which we would take issue
with, but I do not deny the fact that the work has been done or
indeed that it may inform further work that we do. If you would
like chapter and verse in terms of why VIBAT does not reflect
present government policy and also, for example, used presumptions
in terms of the DTI model of economic growth rather than the DfT
one, which is transport specific, I can share that information
with you.
|
